Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
Dipak Kumar Lahiri @ D. K. Lahiri vs National Insurance Company Limited & ... on 19 May, 2016 cites

Maniruddin Bepari vs The Chairman Of The Municipal ... on 16 April, 1935

"12. At this juncture, it will be profitable to refer to the well-known proposition of law that a natural person has the capacity to do all lawful things unless his capacity has been curtailed by some rule of law. It is equally fundamental principle that in case of a statutory corporation, it is just other way. The corporation has no power to do anything unless those powers are conferred on it by the statutes, which creates it. (See Moniruddin Bepari vs. Chairman of the Municipal Corporation, Dacca, reported in 40 CWN 17)."
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Mr Kollol Kumar Dutta vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 March, 2014

Further, the provision of first proviso to paragraph 47 of the said pension Scheme, 1995 was under consideration in the matter of Kollol Kumar Dutta vs. Union of India reported in 2014 SCC Online Gau 39, where after considering the issue involved in that case in the light of the above pension the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed and set aside the action of the respondent authority with the observation that the authority had failed to produce any document to establish that the approval of the Board of Directors was secured for taking action against the person concerned. Therefore, there is no scope to reconsider the applicability of the above provision in the light of the above settled proposition of law.
Gauhati High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - H Roy - Full Document

Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011

Reliance is placed by Mr. Dhar on the decisions of Kollol Kumar Dutta vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 SCC Online Gau 39, State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 1, Ram Tawakya Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 206, State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 540, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, vs. Mangal Singal & Ors., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702, Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, vs. Hari Chand Sri Gopal & Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 236, Nautam Prakash DGSVC, VADTAL.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 94 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors on 18 November, 2010

Reliance is placed by Mr. Dhar on the decisions of Kollol Kumar Dutta vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 SCC Online Gau 39, State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 1, Ram Tawakya Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 206, State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 540, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, vs. Mangal Singal & Ors., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702, Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, vs. Hari Chand Sri Gopal & Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 236, Nautam Prakash DGSVC, VADTAL.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 282 - Full Document

Forage And Co. (Of Lushala) vs Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay And ... on 27 October, 1999

With regard to the decisions produced by Mr. Ghosh in support of his submissions we find that in the matter of Forage and Company's (supra), Frick India Ltd. (supra), the issues involved in those cases were decided on the settled principles of law that the heading prefixed to sections or entries cannot control the plain words of the provision. In our case, we have considered the propriety of the decision making process of the respondent authority in the light of the plain and simple meaning of the provisions of paragraph 47 of the said Scheme, 1995. So, the above decisions do not help the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Pandit D. Aher vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 2006

We do not find consideration of the above grounds by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment In the matter of Pandit D. Aher (supra) the point for consideration before the Court whether the retired person concerned had committed grave misconduct or negligence during his tenure of his service which was a question of fact. The issue involved in the instant case was not relating to the dispute so far as the question of commission of grave misconduct by the appellant was concerned. Therefore, the above decision has no manner of application in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 2001

In the matters of General Insurance Development Officers' Association (supra), Kishan Prakash Sharma (supra) and Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) the interference of the employees in the matter of rationalisation of the provisions embodied in the General Insurance Business (Notification) Act, 1997 was under consideration. It has no manner of applicability so far as the action on the part of the respondent no.5 in withholding the pension of the appellant invoking paragraph 47 of the said Scheme, 1995 was concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 288 - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

The issue involved in the matter of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) was the validity of the action of the employer in withholding 10% of pension and non-release of other terminal dues pending disciplinary proceeding against him. Needless to point out that in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances as also in view of the subject matter of challenge involved in the case in hand the above decision does not require any consideration so far as this appeal is concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next